But I admit I'd pay for the sight of James in full Feathered Serpent regalia. Quetzalcoatl for President, compadres!

I'm suprised that James hasn't started a thread on why he can't wear full Feathered Serpent Regalia to Liturgy.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

2. Severing ties with Orthodoxy because it unites with a Roman church with skeletons in its closet seems like de-friending your best friend because you find out his great great great great great grandfather mistreated your great great great great great grandfather.

Hard to comment, since I'm not familiar with defriendings. Debriefings, yes, but defriendings, no.

I'm not sure whether to argue with you, ignore you, humor you, or just make fun of you.

All of the above?

Logged

'Evil isn't the real threat to the world. Stupid is just as destructive as evil, maybe more so, and it's a hell of a lot more common. What we really need is a crusade against stupid. That might actually make a difference.'~Harry Dresden

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.

Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)

Whatever happened to neighborhood baseball leagues? When I was a kid, all the churches and local businesses sponsored softball or baseball teams, and this got the kids to form good friendships. I grew up RCC and many of my friends were Greek Orthodox, Armenian, etc. It may not have been a meeting on a theological level, but there's a lot to be said for the after-game pizza.

Excuse me, but I remember watching a national geographic type documentary on the mayans several years back. One of the discoveries they discussed was ancient mayan art in a cave, depicting the mayan practice of human sacrifice. I don't have a reference handy, so I'm calling Dr. Isa. Isa, do you have a reference on the practice of human sacrifice in ancient Mayan and Aztec cultures?

Clearly, I must be hallucinating.

Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.

Lord have mercy on us all!

I'm sorry for opening this thread and inviting hostilities. There is truly a vast cloud of ignorance that keeps the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches apart. I was hoping that the article I posted would encourage unity (not necessarily canonical, just more understanding); unfortunately, this thread has turned into a vehicle for pride and mudslinging.

Mods, I wish this thread to be closed, but I will respect whatever decision you make.

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches are not the same. There are very important distinctions between the two and we cannot ignore them. Until we both meet where the truth is, there will be no reunion.

Now, why can't we just leave things at that? Why do we feel the need to prove Catholics wrong, or compare our practices to theirs? Why do we feel entitled to make sweeping generalizations about our Roman Catholic brothers and sisters, to question their sincerity, to mock their piety, and to speak on their behalves?

Why don't we realize that all this hatred masked as "theological debate" is the work of Satan and simply love and pray for our separated brothers and sisters? And not just give lip service to such a sentiment, but really embrace it, or at least TRY.

All we can do is share our faith in love with others. We know nothing of the magnitude of God's love and mercy. If we really are concerned with someone else's salvation, can we do no more than pray for them?

Please forgive me, I am a worthless sinner (and I mean that with all the false modesty that I have). I am very distraught by how we treat each other in the name of "being correct." I wanted this article to be an encouragement to you all, but the Evil One and Master of Lies has transformed this thread into yet another den of hatred and ignorance.

That's questionable as nearly every Aztec document prior to the arrival of the Spanish was destroyed, and most of the sources we get this information from come from Spaniards who wanted to demonize the enemy for permission to exploit them for gold. And even if it did happen, so what? The Spanish didn't make it any better by bashing their heads against the trees after baptizing them and enslaving them at plantations. Europe was practicing imperialism for years and no one stopped them until the Ottomans gave them a run for their money.

While many documents were indeed destroyed by the Spaniards (for a rather interesting, albeit cruel, reason I might add), this is not true. There are a plenty of surviving documents, ranging from important cultural works to effectively market-transaction notes/receipts. I remember reading Aztec works (translated into English) in my Meso-American course. One was a poem written by an eagle or jaguar warrior about being a butterfly, and other was a father's letter to his coming-of-age son (insisting on pursuing important matters rather than chasing women).

Excuse me, but I remember watching a national geographic type documentary on the mayans several years back. One of the discoveries they discussed was ancient mayan art in a cave, depicting the mayan practice of human sacrifice.

IIRC, the Mayans tended to be rather diverse regarding sacrifice with many not participating. The Aztecs and the Toltecs, especially, were predominately sacrifical cultures.

The Aztec combat was largely built around slavery and sacrifice, which is why warriors were rewarded with prestige (e.g. eagle/jaguar title) for capturing enemy combatants.

Importantly their architecture shows very well the reality of their sacrificial rituals, and if I had better Googling skills I'd show pictures. Some of their stonework shows grotesque scenes of undeniable sacrifice.

Anyway, from what I've learned, the scholarly consensus is pretty much against the outdated 70's-80's mentality of the "Aztecs were a bunch of loving, friendly natives that would never hurt a soul." There's just too much evidence, archaeological/literary and otherwise, to the contrary.

As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them. This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense. I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives. Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose. Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs. And for taking our snakes away. Unforgiveable.

It's pretty much because of attitudes expressed in this thread (for example) that I decided to remain Catholic. I do love the Orthodox Churches I've attended but even there, I've had to deal with so many people like "James" that I don't think I'd have the energy to do it on a regular basis. I'd always feel the need to defend the Catholic Church from unfair attacks, even if I left it. So I think I'll just stay where I am and keep asking God for mercy.

Lord have mercy on us all!

I'm sorry for opening this thread and inviting hostilities. There is truly a vast cloud of ignorance that keeps the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches apart. I was hoping that the article I posted would encourage unity (not necessarily canonical, just more understanding); unfortunately, this thread has turned into a vehicle for pride and mudslinging.

Mods, I wish this thread to be closed, but I will respect whatever decision you make.

Lovesupreme,

Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.

Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.

I hoped you later served a severe penance for such outrageous behavior.

Are the Bishops still alive so I can write the Metropolitan to complain about them?

If the are no longer living, does the Orthodox Church have post-mortem penances they can impose?

Back in the pre-internet days of my youth (teen years in this case), there was a misunderstanding of the significance of the lifting of the anathemas between the Roman and Greek Orthodox Catholic Churches. At least in some communities we temporarily became one. In my case an entire Roman Catholic Church participated "fully" in the Divine Liturgy. It was reverential, beautiful, wonderful, and something I will never forget.

I hoped you later served a severe penance for such outrageous behavior.

Are the Bishops still alive so I can write the Metropolitan to complain about them?

If the are no longer living, does the Orthodox Church have post-mortem penances they can impose?

Thanks!

All that was done was a collection for purchasing smelling salts for Isa I am afraid. I am pretty sure he never received them.

...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them. This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense. I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives. Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose. Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs. And for taking our snakes away. Unforgiveable.

As in any group of people you encounter, you will always find radicals who feel so insecure about their belief system that they feel the need to denigrate those around them. This is not unique to Orthodoxy, Protestantism or Roman Catholicism. It is a sad commentary on humanity rather than religion.

I suppose it can also be looked upon in a familial sense. I am pretty sure my siblings and I fought and yelled at each other far more than with anyone else in our lives. Familiarity breeds contempt I suppose. Given the similarities between Christians, I guess we feel we have the right to run each other down.

I shall now go back to begrudging St. Patrick for crushing my ancestor's pagan beliefs. And for taking our snakes away. Unforgiveable.

Lol, best post ITT. I, too, have a vendetta for St. Patrick disposing of my Irish ancestors of their Celtic fables :-)

God did not say "I am union, tolerance and life." He said "I am the Way, the Truth and Life."

Because Way=Life=Truth=Christ, being in Christ equals being in Truth, aka, being correct. And we also have the commandment to love God above everything else. What distraughts me is to see people who say truth is as important as love, but in practice think of truth as discourse built and agreed by consensus. Political action is and should be built and agreed by consensus. You cannot decide truth that way.

I insist that today people trust science more than the Church for several reasons, but one stands above all the others: even atheist scientists have more faith in the power and glory of the Spirit of Truth than many Christians, clergy included. They trust that truth is something worth being worshipped (it is! that's what we should be confessing every day with the prayer "O Heavenly King, the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, Who art everywhere"!)

But we are afraid. We are afraid and ashamed of society's judgment over our disagreements. We are afraid that they will marginalize us and that history will leave us behind. We are afraid that a new civilization will rise where our dearest beliefs will be held as irrelevant and our grandchildren will take us as ignorant provincial supertitious people - we are afraid of having to carry a cross like that of the first-born in the Faith. And we are willing to give up He who named Himself Truth to appease our collective cultural overlords. And yet, Truth told us: "Be not afraid, for I have conquered the world". How can we have forgotten that truth and life are the same thing? How can we put union above truth and try to "reinterpret", relativize known historical facts, even propose that we should accept ambiguous terms in any interpretation that fits us? When has truth been ambiguous? When was Jesus not simple, not trueful? How there will ever be true love without putting truth and being in truth (correct) first?

I am very distraught by how we treat each other in the name of "being correct."

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

+1

I'd like to chime in that Catholics believe exactly the same thing. It's just a question of applicability -- for example, that principle is certainly applicable with respect to Catholic-Anglican dialogue.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 08:54:11 AM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Branch-theory nonsense, or why ‘ecumenist’ is a fightin’ word among convert online Orthodox. The Zoghby Initiative. ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’, which means Greek Catholic converts who reject some defined doctrines, which makes them neither good Catholics nor good Orthodox, denying the true church. Bill Tighe puts paid to all that: while it’s true and helpful to remember that the pre-‘Reformation’ churches have lots in common, none believe the true church is juridically divided against itself.

I think the change is that before, Orthodox bishops were seen as real bishops but lacking jurisdiction, because they seem outside the church, not under the Pope. ... Today it’s clearer and fair that born Orthodox get the benefit of the doubt about schism, so Orthodox bishops are an estranged part of the church, having apostolic authority over their own people, other born Orthodox.

The only way that can happen according to Catholicism is if the Orthodox accept Catholic defined doctrine about the nature of the papacy. Not the same as ultramontanist opinion, unlike what many think. The Pope’s at the top of the chain of command but historically is laissez-faire; traditional Catholicism largely runs itself. (Vatican II was an aberration and bad mistake, of course nothing to do with doctrine.) He’s only used papal infallibility a few times the last couple of centuries to rubber-stamp what Catholics have long believed. Getting upset about the Pope is a red herring. Mostly a cover for Western liberals who really hate him for being Catholic; he can’t change the church to be what they want. (Right: they want more papal power, like what a mainline denomination claims for itself.)

I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Then, there come ecumenists and say: "You know what, these differences are really unimportant or non-existant, we should just love each other and put them aside". This goes against every single quark of the existential experience the convert has about those differences. And even for the cradle who consider them to be important. It's not only cultural identity. That is what the convert abdicated - with all the psychological and social problems that go along - to adopt the new faith. It's really an existential thing.

« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 10:20:25 AM by Fabio Leite »

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to him. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Then, there come ecumenists and say: "You know what, these differences are really unimportant, we should just love each other and put them aside". This goes against every single quark of the existential experience the convert has about those differences. And even for the cradle who consider them to be important. It's not only cultural identity. That is what the convert abdicated - with all the psychological and social problems that go along - to adopt the new faith. It's really an existential thing.

Depends what you mean by 'ecumenism'. Being nice to Protestants, et al., and having official talks with them in order to teach them are good. They don't go against the true-church claim and shouldn't rankle converts' understandably strong emotions about their former faiths. That's what official Catholicism and official Orthodoxy mean by ecumenism.

Then there's the 'ecumenism' that's relativism denying the true church, which rightly gets online Orthodox' hackles up! Every now and then a Catholic posts an opinion like that. It's like the Anglicans' branch theory, where they're trying to be nice by including 'the Roman Church' (what they call Catholics: hail, Caesar!) and the Orthodox as 'branches' of the true church, but it really insults both by making light of each's teaching on the true church.

Then in this online circle you get a few, mostly converts, in Greek Catholicism who thumb their noses at post-schism Catholic defined doctrines and agree with Orthodox opinions on everything, but they don't join the Orthodox. Again, thinking they're better than either church. Basically, Stuart Koehl (their doyen, who's been preaching essentially himself for nearly 20 years online), maybe Fr. Bob Taft, an occasional Melkite such as Bp. Elias (Zoghby) of the Zoghby Initiative, and some high-turnover traffic of converts to Greek Catholicism who might start there as liturgically Orthodox and doctrinally Catholic (what Rome wants Greek Catholics to be) but get fed up with the latinizations and second-class treatment so they buy into Orthodoxy and convert.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

What? No. Please stop suggesting that I'm in any way advocating a compromise of Orthodox Christianity for the sake of union.

Whether or not Rome returns to its "first among equals" status is not my decision to make.

I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

What? No. Please stop suggesting that I'm in any way advocating a compromise of Orthodox Christianity for the sake of union.

Whether or not Rome returns to its "first among equals" status is not my decision to make.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

This plays out here quite frequently and it has nothing to do with the topic.

Quite often, the vast majority of readers do not agree with the minority of posters that post on any given topic. We are fortunate that our opinions do not undergo primary election screening to root out people that are in between on some issues.

I think I've made it clear (in this and other threads) that I don't think we should ever even consider placing reunion above Truth. I am just upset by the attitudes we exhibit to those who we believe are fundamentally wrong.

This plays out here quite frequently and it has nothing to do with the topic.

Quite often, the vast majority of readers do not agree with the minority of posters that post on any given topic. We are fortunate that our opinions do not undergo primary election screening to root out people that are in between on some issues.

Wow, you're right that this has nothing to do with the topic. I'm fine with people criticizing the article that I posted. What bothers me is when a poster comes in with no intention of discussing the article and says something incredibly foolish, like, oh, I don't know, "if Catholics ever rejoin us, I'll join a schismatic group because of some ancestral grudge." And then the thread devolves into taking potshots at eachother.

After reading this, all I can think is that Im glad Im not a bishop and not deciding such matters. If Rome ever came back to Orthodoxy I'd rejoice from the mountain tops (of which there are many in Central Virginia )

I wouldn't join a schismatic group if I didnt agree with the way they rejoined. Thats kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

PP

Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)

I can understand why some convets are anti-ecumenists. They lived their previous religion. They studied it. They understood it. Then, they get to know the new one and obviously the differences are what call their attention. To their astonishment, in the subjects where both religions differ, the new one makes more sense to them. That is a cause of distress and discomfort. If this pre-convert gets convinced the other side is right *and* has commitment to truth greater than to family ties, cultural environment, even to his own life history to that point, he switches sides. This may take a couple of years, a lot of effort, a lot of sacrifice in personal and social life.

Yes, I've known some converts like that.

But I'd like to add that I have also witnessed a very different phenomenon among some converts -- perhaps most clearly illustrated by those converts who see nothing wrong with receiving communion in the very church that they left.

I'm sure it happens but it doesn't sound like online Orthodox! Maybe an ex-Catholic or ex-Orthodox marriage convert to the other church. I understand most converts to Orthodoxy are still marriage converts: Tom Hanks and the plot of My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

P.S. I should have added that it's only on the internet (as far as I know) that I've encountered the sort of convert I mentioned -- I mean the I-haven't-left-anything converts who see intercommunion as "refusing to participate in schism" and what-not. (On a side note, it strikes me that they might be the "other side of the coin" of the entitled-OicwR. :thoughtful:)